Skip to main content
Log in

Feigning incompetency to stand trial

An investigation of the Georgia Court Competency Test

  • Articles
  • Published:
Law and Human Behavior

Abstract

The vulnerability of competency to stand trial instruments to malingering was previously unexamined. In this study, the Georgia Court Competency Test (GCCT) was administered to offenders asked to feign incompetency; their results were compared to controls and pretrial defendants (both competent and incompetent). Offenders appeared to be able to simulate incompetency and tended to score lower on the GCCT than their truly incompetent counterparts. For the detection of simulators, a newly developed Atypical Presentation scale for the GCCT showed promise. In addition, several strategies were explored that included simulators' failure of very simple items (i.e., floor effect) and variable success on items of increasing difficulty (i.e., performance curve). Optimal cutting scores are presented for forensic clinicians to screen defendants for feigned incompetency.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • American Bar Association. (1989).ABA criminal justice mental health standards. Washington: author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagby, R. M., Nicholson, R. A., Rogers, R., & Nussbaum, D. (1992). Domains of competency to stand trial.Law and Human Behavior, 16, 491–507.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnard, G. W., Thompson, J. W., Jr., Freeman, W. C., Robbins, L., Gies, D., & Hankins, G. C. (1991). Competency to stand trial: Description and initial evaluation of a new computer-assisted assessment tool (CADCOMP).Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 19, 367–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaber, J. R., Marston, A., Michelli, J., & Mills, M. J. (1985). A brief test for measuring malingering in schizophrenic individuals.American Journal of Psychiatry, 142, 1478–1481.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Golding, S., Roesch, R., & Schreiber, J. (1984). Assessment and conceptualization of competency to stand trial: Preliminary data on the Interdisciplinary Fitness Interview.Law and Human Behavior, 8, 321–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gothard, S., Viglione, D. J., Jr., Meloy, J. R., & Sherman, M. (in press). Detecting malingering in competency to stand trial evaluations.Law and Human Behavior.

  • Grisso, T. (1986).Evaluating competencies: Forensic assessments and instruments. New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gudjonsson, G. H., & Shackleton, H. (1986). The pattern of scores on Raven's Matrices during “faking bad” and “nonfaking” performance.British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 25, 35–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, W. G., & Mullett, N. (1987). Georgia Court Competency Test-R. In M. Hersen & A. S. Bellack (Eds.),Dictionary of behavioral assessment techniques (p. 234). New York: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGarry, A. L. (1973).Competency to stand trial and mental illness (DHEW Pub. No. ADM-77-103). Rockville, MD: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson, R. A., & Kugler, K. E. (1991). Competent and incompetent criminal defendants: A quantitative review of comparative research.Psychological Bulletin, 109, 355–370.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson, R. A., Briggs, S. R., & Robertson, H. C. (1988). Instruments for assessing competency to stand trial: How do they work?Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 19, 383–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson, R. A., Robertson, H. C., Johnson, W. G., & Jensen, G. (1988). A comparison of instruments for assessing competency to stand trial.Law and Human Behavior, 12, 313–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roesch, R., Webster, C. D., & Eaves, D. (1984).The Fitness Interview Test: A method for examining fitness to stand trial. Toronto: Research Report, Center of Criminology, University of Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R. (Ed.) (1988).Clinical assessment of malingering and deception. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R. (1990). Development of a new classificatory model of malingering.Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 18, 323–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R., Bagby, R. M., & Gillis, J. R. (1992). Improvements in the M test as a screening measure for malingering.Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 20, 101–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R., Bagby, R. M., & Dickens, S. E. (1992).Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS) and professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R., Sewell, K. W., & Goldstein, A. (1994). Explanatory models of malingering: A prototypical analysis.Law and Human Behavior, 18, 543–552.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R., Harrell, E. H., & Liff, C. D. (1993). Feigning neuropsychological impairment: A critical review of methodological and clinical considerations.Clinical Psychology Review, 13, 255–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R., & Resnick, P. J. (1988).Training guide on assessment of malingering and deception. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R., Sewell, K. W., & Salekin, R. (1994). A meta-analysis of malingering on the MMPI-2.Assessment, 1, 227–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wildman, R., Batchelor, E., Thompson, L., Nelson, F., Moore, J., Patterson, M., & de Laosa, M. (1980),The Georgia court competency test: An attempt to develop a rapid, quantitative measure for fitness for trial. Unpublished manuscript, Forensic Services Division, Central State Hospital, Milledgeville, GA.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

About this article

Cite this article

Gothard, S., Rogers, R. & Sewell, K.W. Feigning incompetency to stand trial. Law Hum Behav 19, 363–373 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499137

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499137

Keywords

Navigation